4-3-3

[EnglishOxide]

Anyone else got a sneaky feeling this is how Shakespeare wants to base us this season?

 

It would explain having 6 strikers (we've received no bids for them) and about 8 centre mids. It also is reminiscent of the classic Vardy/Nugent/Kane partnership back in the Championship when we almost blew getting into the playoffs by losing about 15 games in a row.

 

Our first team front 6 would be along the lines of:

 

---Vardy-----Slimani---Iheanacho----

-------Drinky----Iborra---Ndidi------------

 

Our second team front 6:

 

---Musa-------Ulloa------Okazaki/Gray---

-----James-----Amartey/Mendy----King----

 

It partially makes sense because we don't seem in pursuit of any pacey, tricky wingers to replace Mahrez, Vardy may revert to his old position at Fleetwood (maybe he hasn't the stamina to lead the line at 100% anymore). It also frees Slimani up to do his thing. Albrighton can revert to an attacking full back. Gray can assume a role that won't require as much defensive concentration.

 

4-3-3 has never worked for us. Should we be concerned?

[Nick]

I'd welcome the experimentation but personally I think he'll go 442 at home and a 352 away with the personnel to easily switch between the two off the bench.

 

I don't think Vardy should be playing wide in a 3 up front ever.

 

433 I reckon is more for possession based sides which we are not...

 

I also am unsure about Fuchs as a wing back - I think he's a left back that gets forward - Chilwell may be more suited to this role...

[lcfcsnow]

I've thought the same and I'm concerned. You need attacking full backs in that formation, so definitely not Simpson and Chilwell over Fuchs. You need at least one attacking midfielder, a Sigurdsson/Silva type player who plays in the hole. All of ours are box to box and much of the same, and Okazaki is our only link player. When we play 3 in midfield, Drinkwater always seems to end up wide and he couldn't look anymore uncomfortable. And worst of all, we don't have the strikeforce to play 3 up front. Vardy only really performs as the main man up front, so we end up with target men Slimani or Ulloa playing a withdrawn role or out wide.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

It could be a simple case of using what he currently has in a formation that allows him to get players a sufficient run out. 

 

I would expect Shakespear to play certain combinations and structures he's looking at as a firm base for the future, but not necessarily all at the same time - he will need to employ the fog of war a little too.

 

The other thing to consider is that teams now need to be able to morph the functionality of a formation both through the season and an individual game itself - you may start of playing 4-4-2 one way, but finish playing it in another based on an ever changing personnel and match situation.

 

Interesting that one of the complaints about our first friendly was the switch to 3-5-2 was largely unproductive in an attacking sense - because that's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be, that formation is designed more as a recking tactic that prevents the opposition from playing, in which car it did its job. 

 

Whats clear, with the top 6/7 teams showing incredible strength in depth, we will need to be more flexible in approach. The high intensity approach that we've come to love and expect won't be a solution for all games.

[eddylcfc]

I like 4-3-3 but IF we sign Iheanacho id want him and Vardy to start as a 2 up top - especially in home games.

 

I could perhaps see it being deployed away from home against the so called stronger sides.

 

Id go with a 3 man midfield of Iborra-Ndidi-DD with a front 3 of Mahrez (if he stays put), Gray and Vardy. 

 

Shakey clearly has options but id imagine 4-4-2 will be the formation of choice for our opener.

 

 

[Alex_LCFC]

I dont get all this iheanacho playing out wide. All his goals for man city have been in a poachers position. Surely thats how we will use him 

[matty98]

We'd have no creativity if we tried to play 433 with our current team, you need atleast one central player to be creating chances which we don't have.

[sdb]

We don't have the players for 433, certainly not without leaving good players out, or playing square pegs in round holes. 

 

3-4-1-2 wouldn't surprise me. Think that keeps our best players in and our full backs are fit enough. Just means another CB is required. 

[foxes21]

I think we'd be at our very best when we can transition between 4-4-1-1 & 3-4-1-2 midgame without any substitutions.

 

We saw it early on in the 2015/16 season, with De Laet moving to RCB and Albrighton shifting across to RWB mid game. Was very fluid in our first game against Sunderland.

 

Could technically do it with this starting line up:

 

Schmeichel

Simpson, Morgan, Maguire, Fuchs

Mahrez, Drinkwater, Ndidi, Albrighton

Iheanacho

Vardy

 

Transition to 3-4-1-2:

 

Schmeichel

Simpson, Morgan, Maguire

Albrighton, Drinkwater, Ndidi, Fuchs

Mahrez

Vardy, Iheanacho

[Fox92]

Not enough width.

 

Why have a player like Slimani playing and then our best crosser in Albrighton sat on the bench,

[Long Eaton Fox]

I quite like the idea of a back 4 with 2 from 3 protecting it (Ndidi, Iborro or Drinky) and a front 4 of Iheanacho, Sigurdsson and Mahrez with Vardy up front. I may be dreaming.

[hackneyfox]

To go three at the back we'd need at least one more CB and a replacement for Simpson.